* Pneumonia is COD on his death certificate; is most common diagnosis of person with AIDS.* Zero access to medical records.* Known risky MSM (men sleeping with men) behavior including blowing young boys behind shows.* His declining appearance was more consistent with AIDS than a cancer.

I met him 20 years ago on the Leprosy tour. We were hanging around the stage exit talking to one of the band members when Chuck showed up. He looked to me, cast me an unsettling smile, then noticed my girlfriend beside me. He then frowned, looked down and stormed off without a word. It is memory of these details that has me convinced the new information is a sad, ugly truth after all.

Most people have trouble admitting any illness. It's awkward and makes people nervous.

Do you want to be tell your neighbors:

* I have cancer.* I've got Ebola.* I have AIDS!* My colon wound is draining.

No, you'd rather keep it lite 'n' friendly. Note for antisocial metalheads: it's considered bad form to mention things that connect us to death (pooping, dying, disease, fornication and misery) in polite company, because it makes everyone uneasy as they assess their own status regarding The Grim Reaper Sans Lube.

But if you had to tell them the above... you might prefer they think you lost the cancer lottery, instead of having them wonder if you're an IV drug user or anal banditry expert.

"if he really had AIDS, why would he have hidden it?""because he was a spunk chugger and didn't want people to find out.""and how do you know he was a spunk chugger?""because he hid the fact he had aids."

and it's one of the most common arguments i see here. it's not any different from someone claiming the Bible is the word of god because it says so, and that its so is believable since it's the word of god. the two claims are supported by nothing other than each other, in that kind of argument - it's a bit like trying to build a suspension bridge without any earth under the supports

to note, i don't care if he died of AIDS or not. all the evidence that i've come across through here is pretty inconclusive, but not so much so that it's dismissible outright. truth is, i'll probably never know for certain if he did contract AIDS, nor do i care if i ever do. it would change absolutely nothing in my existence, objective or subjective, to find out he did or didn't. it is fun to rile the fanboys, however

"if he really had AIDS, why would he have hidden it?""because he was a spunk chugger and didn't want people to find out.""and how do you know he was a spunk chugger?""because he hid the fact he had aids."

Your summary of it is a logical fallacy. The argument here suggests he had AIDS based on his known high-risk lifestyle, the way his death was covered up, and medical evidence like the cause of death. That his death was covered up IS acceptable evidence for AIDS being the cause, because people frequently hide that cause of death. It is not the sole support of the argument, nor is it used in the way you describe; we know he had a high-risk lifestyle, and the coverup of his death is good proof for types of death THAT ARE COMMONLY COVERED UP.